Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The rename can be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure)  Ya  sh  !   04:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

List of people with the longest marriages

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This non-notable list of non-notable people is a magnet for original research. Long marriages are trivia; the kind of thing you'd see in Guinness, not in an encyclopedia. I urge editors to review the list's talk archives to understand the original research used to determine inclusion in the list. For example, a USA Today article about a Haitian couple's marriage was rejected because editors were unable to independently verify the claim. With one exception, none of the people in the list are independently notable. (That exception is Daniel F. Bakeman, whose entry is supported only by a dubious findagrave reference.) Many entries are supported only by unreliable sources, such as paid obituaries, and most of the others by one-off human interest news reports (WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS). Finally, the page's maintainers arbitrarily declare subjects 'likely dead' if there's no news coverage about them in the last year. This is likely a WP:BLP problem. Pburka (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS concern who gets an article entry, not who appears on a list. The list guide reads: "If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation [will suffice]". Every article in Wikipedia is a "magnet for original research", and that is why we patrol them. When there is controversy, we explicate that in the article. We have age controversies all the time about actors and musicians and gymnasts, we even have a category for it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep issues with the quality of the article as it currently stands are separate from notability. This topic of this list is clearly notable, as you can see by the multitude of coverage of "longest marriage." FuriouslySerene (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  05:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * delete The list is very difficult to verify and could miss eligible marriages from countries with poor records or many records would be paper only. It contains mostly entries from USA where records are better. And only a few from China which has long life expectancy . Birth and marriage records for very old people are poorly maintained in China. LibStar (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is just as true for any oldest people list as well, e.g., List of oldest living people or Oldest people. The fact the information may be disputed or difficult to verify doesn't make the list non-notable or unverifiable. It just means that it may be incomplete. But many lists on Wikipedia are incomplete, that's not a valid reason to delete. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * China is 67th in life expectancy, so not "long life expectancy". All of Wikipedia is about verifiable information. All information, other than scientific constants, have a information half-life, where they are superseded by new information or more accurate information. The number of planets in the solar system just changed, maybe we should give up on that list too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Where's the RS talking about this collective group? Scattered reports of long marriages, collected here by WP editors, don't count. EEng (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are applying the article standard to the list standard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm applying the standard for lists (from WP:N):
 * One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.
 * So where is it? EEng (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is "one accepted reason," as your quote indicates. Another one is, per WP:CSC: "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers." The list is reasonably short and I'd say it's useful and interesting to readers. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that, at 112K, it exceeds the 32K guideline by a factor of four, and it's not useful for navigation since zero of the entries are linked (being nonnotable) so that there's nowhere to navigate to. That leaves interesting. Not sure what's interesting about the names of the couple in the 17th-longest marriage, with nothing else being supplied. EEng (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no way this list could ever be complete. Without a reliable source listing longest marriages, this is the List of longest marriages discovered by Wikipedia editors. Pburka (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No list is complete, there will always be more popes and presidents. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * More like longest marriages discovered by reliable sources, we compile, we do not discover. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You've examined all reliable sources? Pburka (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources like the Guinness Book of Records and the Old Farmer's Almanac do record such extremes and so the topic just passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a topic given coverage in independent sources, as identified by Andrew D. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is interesting, plus useful for comparison, regardless of complete accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzypeg7 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Satisfies LISTN. ONEVENT and NOTNEWS do not apply to a list. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 03:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject in itself is notable. The nominator's concern regarding original research is not a good argument for deletion; if claims are inserted into the article that are not backed by reliable sources, then the proper response is to remove such claims, not to delete an article about a notable subject with sourceable claims. —Lowellian (reply) 10:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename The title of this list is extremely misleading. This is not a list of people with the longest marriages.  Far too many people with long marriages are left out for that title to be accurate or fair to the unindoctrinated reader. Given the list's bias against people from the majority of nations on earth with inadequate records on this subject, this list page would be much more fairly titled "List of people with long marriages." David in DC (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly passes the criteria of LISTN per Andrew D.'s sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to "List of people with long marriages" as the current title is quite impossible to meet. Good with delete too. Legacypac (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Possible rename but a notable concept. AusLondonder (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per all in favour of keeping, especially "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )" in fact. Extremely sexy (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn. I'll work with other editors on the page to fix existing original research issues and patrol it for new OR. Pburka (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.